2016 Republican Primary

[Ibanez]

God what a great thread...so somebody going to start a general election thread?

Uh....93 began that as soon as Indy was called for TubTrumper.

[BDKJMU]

My last comment in the Republican Primary thread is this:

This year forced me to come to grips with something. For years I have defended Republican voters. When people said they were stupid I argued they aren't. When people said they were irrational I argued not so. When people said they were hateful I defended them.

But what happened this year showed that there really IS a very ugly underbelly to the Republican electorate. A lot of what people have been saying about it was just shown to be true. You have a critical mass of people in the Republican electorate composed of horribly ignorant, irrational, hateful people. There's no longer any basis for denying it.

Hateful how?

[SDHornet]

God what a great thread...so somebody going to start a general election thread?

Uh....93 began that as soon as Indy was called for TubTrumper.

I'm trying to catch up on a weeks worth of JSO drivel. Cut me some slack...

[Ibanez]

Uh....93 began that as soon as Indy was called for TubTrumper.

I'm trying to catch up on a weeks worth of JSO drivel. Cut me some slack...

You might need some tissues. It's pretty epic.

[SDHornet]

I'm trying to catch up on a weeks worth of JSO drivel. Cut me some slack...

You might need some tissues. It's pretty epic.

It's hysterical...like houndy in his multiple Zimmy thread beatdowns hysterical.

[CID1990]

Russia isn't an external threat to the US - they are a geopolitical adversary, and they see US as an external threat to them (and they behave completely predictably if you look at them that way). I believe we should be pulling back from them - but your comment only reinforces what I said. You understand little to nothing about Russia and why they matter-

a lot like the Prez

Do your superiors realize what kind of talent is being wasted writing parking tickets in Africa? Now be a good fellow and run along and start a thread about Russia somewhere. This one is about the Republican primary.

actually even the lowly consuls like me understand

its a small and proud group of ignoramuses that cant figure it out

guess which group you're in?

[JohnStOnge]

Hearing Donald Trump saying "Nobody respects women more than me" while making those ridiculous hand movements he makes.

Target rich environment again. I guess he can try to shift the attention to Bill Clinton's stuff and Hillary supporting Bill. But I can't see how his statement that nobody respects women more than he does is going to fly. There are just too many documented statements on his part.

Of course I guess I have to say that he's had a whole bunch of outright lies fly to this point. So we'll see.

[JohnStOnge]

I have absolutely no way to independently judge the conclusions but here is an example of a detailed argument for the opinion that nothing has emerged that should result in a Hillary prosecution:

http://lawnewz.com/politics/nothing-has ... t-we-know/

[93henfan]

JSO fighting vehemently to defend the viability of Hillary Clinton as a presidential candidate.

That escalated quickly.

Pretty soon he'll be asking questions about reassignment surgery.

[JohnStOnge]

JSO fighting vehemently to defend the viability of Hillary Clinton as a presidential candidate.

That escalated quickly.

Pretty soon he'll be asking questions about reassignment surgery.

What will be will be with Hillary Clinton. Right now, if I had to bet, I'd bet she skates. In a few weeks we're going to get an announcement that there will be no criminal charges against her. But if that doesn't happen, it looks like it will be a situation in which the Democrats will have plenty of time to adjust. They can pick somebody else that should be able to beat Trump in the general election. In fact, as we all know, right now Sanders has a bigger edge over Trump than Clinton does in general election polls. Not only did Sanders lead Trump by 56% to 40% in that most recent CNN poll; he led him by 53% to 44% in the SOUTH. So the Democrats will be at least starting in a very good place if they have to go with Sanders. And Trump is pretty well known and "branded." I'm optimistic that it would be hard to change opinions of those who already view him in an unfavorable light.

I will go with whatever horse the Democrats provide because we have gotten into a surreal scenario in which the Republicans picked somebody so unacceptable as their nominee that the single most important objective is to keep the Republican nominee from becoming President.

Great line by some conservative I just saw on CNN:

I don't care what label you wear. If you are unfit to be President and dangerous you are unfit to be President and dangerous.

That's in the context in which the one member of a four person conservative candidate complained that three of the four people on the panel are opposed to Trump. And it nails the situation. If you're a thinking person you can not fall in line between a totally unfit and apparently mentally ill individual just because he's the nominee of your party.

[JohnStOnge]

I think it was Cluck that made a post in another thread about how government experience is over rated and/or unnecessary. I have never subscribed to the idea that experience in business is relevant to experience in government. I think that any executive experience helps to some extent. But private sector experience does not prepare someone for being a government chief executive. I happened to see a CNN guy recite an essay he wrote on that this morning and I think a quote he gave sums it up nicely. Here is the reference to the quote and the quote:

As Walter Lippmann wrote in 1930 about Herbert Hoover, possibly the most admired business leader of his age, “It is true, of course, that a politician who is ignorant of business, law, and engineering will move in a closed circle of jobs and unrealities. . . . [But the] popular notion that administering a government is like administering a private corporation, that it is just business, or housekeeping, or engineering, is a misunderstanding. The political art deals with matters peculiar to politics, with a complex of material circumstances, of historic deposit, of human passion, for which the problems of business or engineering as such do not provide an analogy.”

From editorial at https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... story.html

To me the idea that Donald Trump's experience in doing things like running a real estate development business provides experience relevant to being the Chief Executive of the Executive Branch of United States government is absurd. I don't think Hillary's resume is the best either. I think the best experience is provided by being Governor of a large State and Hillary has not been a government Chief Executive. But she at LEAST has experience working at the top level of the Executive Branch and as a Senator who has to work with the Chief Executive. She at least has some understanding of how government works and how the United States interacts with the world. Trump, as he's demonstrated numerous times when opening his mouth, has no clue.

[JohnStOnge]

Accidentally hit "Quote" instead of edit.

[kalm]

JSO fighting vehemently to defend the viability of Hillary Clinton as a presidential candidate.

That escalated quickly.

Pretty soon he'll be asking questions about reassignment surgery.

What will be will be with Hillary Clinton. Right now, if I had to bet, I'd bet she skates. In a few weeks we're going to get an announcement that there will be no criminal charges against her. But if that doesn't happen, it looks like it will be a situation in which the Democrats will have plenty of time to adjust. They can pick somebody else that should be able to beat Trump in the general election. In fact, as we all know, right now Sanders has a bigger edge over Trump than Clinton does in general election polls. Not only did Sanders lead Trump by 56% to 40% in that most recent CNN poll; he led him by 53% to 44% in the SOUTH. So the Democrats will be at least starting in a very good place if they have to go with Sanders. And Trump is pretty well known and "branded." I'm optimistic that it would be hard to change opinions of those who already view him in an unfavorable light.

I will go with whatever horse the Democrats provide because we have gotten into a surreal scenario in which the Republicans picked somebody so unacceptable as their nominee that the single most important objective is to keep the Republican nominee from becoming President.

Great line by some conservative I just saw on CNN:

I don't care what label you wear. If you are unfit to be President and dangerous you are unfit to be President and dangerous.

That's in the context in which the one member of a four person conservative candidate complained that three of the four people on the panel are opposed to Trump. And it nails the situation. If you're a thinking person you can not fall in line between a totally unfit and apparently mentally ill individual just because he's the nominee of your party.

Blah....

How do you define "unfit" and "dangerous"?

Some might have considered FDR dangerous. GWB was certainly dangerous...probably unfit too.

Hillary's brand of neo-conservatism is dangerous.

Maybe some types of dangerous are positive?

Again...more establishment drivel from you and CNN...

[BDKJMU]

What will be will be with Hillary Clinton. Right now, if I had to bet, I'd bet she skates. In a few weeks we're going to get an announcement that there will be no criminal charges against her. But if that doesn't happen, it looks like it will be a situation in which the Democrats will have plenty of time to adjust. They can pick somebody else that should be able to beat Trump in the general election. In fact, as we all know, right now Sanders has a bigger edge over Trump than Clinton does in general election polls. Not only did Sanders lead Trump by 56% to 40% in that most recent CNN poll; he led him by 53% to 44% in the SOUTH. So the Democrats will be at least starting in a very good place if they have to go with Sanders. And Trump is pretty well known and "branded." I'm optimistic that it would be hard to change opinions of those who already view him in an unfavorable light.

I will go with whatever horse the Democrats provide because we have gotten into a surreal scenario in which the Republicans picked somebody so unacceptable as their nominee that the single most important objective is to keep the Republican nominee from becoming President.

Great line by some conservative I just saw on CNN:



That's in the context in which the one member of a four person conservative candidate complained that three of the four people on the panel are opposed to Trump. And it nails the situation. If you're a thinking person you can not fall in line between a totally unfit and apparently mentally ill individual just because he's the nominee of your party.

Blah....

How do you define "unfit" and "dangerous"?

Some might have considered FDR dangerous. GWB was certainly dangerous...probably unfit too.

Hillary's brand of neo-conservatism is dangerous.

Maybe some types of dangerous are positive?

Again...more establishment drivel from you and CNN...

And right now we have the king of unfit to be POTUS- in 2008 a neophyte community organizer..

[DSUrocks07]

Blah....

How do you define "unfit" and "dangerous"?

Some might have considered FDR dangerous. GWB was certainly dangerous...probably unfit too.

Hillary's brand of neo-conservatism is dangerous.

Maybe some types of dangerous are positive?

Again...more establishment drivel from you and CNN...

And right now we have the king of unfit to be POTUS- in 2008 a neophyte community organizer..

Somebody play a waterfall sound CD for JSO

Repeat after me my brother,
America will survive Trump
The Republican party will survive Trump
Four more years



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

[Ibanez]

JSO, nobody goes full retard.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JohnStOnge]

Darn I forgot I said I wasn't going to post in the Republican primary thread any more. Or actually I THINK I meant to post those in the Hillary vs. Trump thread.

[Ibanez]

Nebraska:
Trump- 61.4% all 39 delegates
Cruz- 18.5%

W. Viriginia:
Trump- 76.9% all 31 delegates
Cruz- 9%

[DSUrocks07]

Nebraska:
Trump- 61.4% all 39 delegates
Cruz- 18.5%

W. Viriginia:
Trump- 76.9% all 31 delegates
Cruz- 9%

Remember when it was predicted that Nebraska was going to go for Cruz? Not even close

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

[bluehenbillk]

I wish Paul Ryan would just resign. He's been a failure as Speaker of the House, come up with a budget yet Paul? Trump has the heartbeat of the Republican electorate, not Paul Ryan. Voters have embraced Trump because he's not Paul Ryan, he's not part of the failed & corrupt DC establishment. The same DC establishment that wants to "tie Trump to back their conservative policies" to get their endorsements?

If you want to endorse Trump go ahead & do so, if you want to opt not to endorse him , go ahead and do so. Getting the endorsements of Ryan & other failed DC politicians will not boost Trump's candidacy in November. If voters wanted somebody that would represent the status quo there were 16 other candidates to pick. It's time that the fools & career politicians in DC recognize why Trump won & what it means. Business NOT as usual.

[Ivytalk]

Nebraska:
Trump- 61.4% all 39 delegates
Cruz- 18.5%

W. Viriginia:
Trump- 76.9% all 31 delegates
Cruz- 9%

Remember when it was predicted that Nebraska was going to go for Cruz? Not even close

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

My man Ben Sasse got his family out to vote.

[houndawg]

Blah....

How do you define "unfit" and "dangerous"?

Some might have considered FDR dangerous. GWB was certainly dangerous...probably unfit too.

Hillary's brand of neo-conservatism is dangerous.

Maybe some types of dangerous are positive?

Again...more establishment drivel from you and CNN...

And right now we have the king of unfit to be POTUS- in 2008 a neophyte community organizer..

..who could win a third term in a walkover this November if he were running.

[CID1990]

And right now we have the king of unfit to be POTUS- in 2008 a neophyte community organizer..

..who could win a third term in a walkover this November if he were running.

and concerns over his inexperience proved to be correct- he wound up being an ineffective president. the only times he WAS effective it was in created legislative disasters or weakening the third leg of congressional oversight

but you are right- he WOULD win a third term, and I would probably vote for him - solely because he would an ineffective version of the other two. I prefer government not getting anything done

[houndawg]

..who could win a third term in a walkover this November if he were running.

and concerns over his inexperience proved to be correct- he wound up being an ineffective president. the only times he WAS effective it was in created legislative disasters or weakening the third leg of congressional oversight

but you are right- he WOULD win a third term, and I would probably vote for him - solely because he would an ineffective version of the other two. I prefer government not getting anything done

as loñg as their check clears the bank, WGAF?

[CID1990]

and concerns over his inexperience proved to be correct- he wound up being an ineffective president. the only times he WAS effective it was in created legislative disasters or weakening the third leg of congressional oversight

but you are right- he WOULD win a third term, and I would probably vote for him - solely because he would an ineffective version of the other two. I prefer government not getting anything done

as loñg as their check clears the bank, WGAF?

Hyperbole.